What remarkable MTFs. I'd run out and buy that immediately if Canon produced it. Come to think of it, it might be worthwhile buying the Nikon plus a crop body for holiday shoots when I can't take my big Canon gear as it is so, so much better than the 100-400.

Shame on you, Canon! Geriatric ward still sound asleep. Not able to stick a new 4-stop IS into the current 100-400 and even less so to come up with a newly-designed, excellent 100-400 f/4.0-5.6 IS L II ... matching the new Nikon's MTF.

Hmm, I couldn't care less about the 70 mm position to be honest. I rather have a somewhat limited zoom range in favor of image quality.

That said, buy the Canon 100-400 while you can, it's (relatively) cheap - a MkII will definitely set you back more. I like the push/pull design for motorsports especially, being able to chase the subject as it rapidly comes closer.

I must say though that I've used my 100-400 less since I've paired the 70-200 F2.8 IS MkII to a 1.4 TC. The latter offers F/4 and better IQ throughout the range (98-280mm).

Still, benefit of the 100-400: reach, compactness (at 100 mm) and light weight. The 70-200 + TC is a lot heavier, something that counts on a long day of shooting. I wonder what the added gearing of a rotary zoom 100-400 would add to the weight...

In a way they did just that, plus an 0.7TC in the lens design to obscure it. Lets assume the 200-400 eventually becomes available to paying customers the actual utility of a new 100-400 would be reduced again, as in either 300mm is enough or I'd prefer closer to 5-600mm. With the high MP numbers common cropping is much easier then dealing wit a to narrow FOV.

In a way they did just that, plus an 0.7TC in the lens design to obscure it. Lets assume the 200-400 eventually becomes available to paying customers the actual utility of a new 100-400 would be reduced again, as in either 300mm is enough or I'd prefer closer to 5-600mm. With the high MP numbers common cropping is much easier then dealing wit a to narrow FOV.

The 200-400 is not available. And it is not affordable for 99% of non-Pro photogs. It is therefore NO alternative to a newly designed, excellent 100-400 II ... at a price not higher than the new Nikon 70-400.

The 200-400 is not available. And it is not affordable for 99% of non-Pro photogs. It is therefore NO alternative to a newly designed, excellent 100-400 II ... at a price not higher than the new Nikon 70-400.

If the Canon releases a better version, be ready to fork out at least as much... 2700.

The 200-400 is not available. And it is not affordable for 99% of non-Pro photogs. It is therefore NO alternative to a newly designed, excellent 100-400 II ... at a price not higher than the new Nikon 70-400.

If the Canon releases a better version, be ready to fork out at least as much... 2700.

At least as much ... you are joking ... right?

Canon will end up charging upwards of 50% of the price of the 200-400mm lens.

The current 100-400 sells well and delivers good IQ at a very good price but I'm eagerly waiting to see the IQ delivered by the new Nikon. Unless the difference in the IQ is substantial, Canon's price advantage will be enormous.

why must everybody think that when Nikon/Sony/anybody does anything, canon needs to follow. that's not called leading.

Quote

We have covered this in the forum many times....Canon, especially being the top dog, will not feel obligated to match "focal length for focal length" what Nikon offers given the market structure

which is why canon put out a 200-400 zoom

Quote

If you want a really good lens get the brand new Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-f/5.6

It's MTF data indicates it is way way way better than the current Canon 100-400mm

off course it is. the 100-400 was never a good IQ performer, it was just without much competition during the decade of canon dominance. But the world has changed, Nikon/sony combined have greater market share, and so seeing sony and Nikon put out a pair of outstanding optics should surprise nobody.

we live in times of great choice for all. mirrorless dominated by companies that had been written out, the giants struggling to hold on to market share! who would have thought!

It is therefore NO alternative to a newly designed, excellent 100-400 II

It doesn't need to, it just closes the proverbial box.With more attractive alternatives up- and downward plus sides that make a lateral breakthrough difficult we're looking at a limited audience with lots of options.About the same dilema the 24-70/4 faces, but from more angles.

Shame on you, Canon! Geriatric ward still sound asleep. Not able to stick a new 4-stop IS into the current 100-400 and even less so to come up with a newly-designed, excellent 100-400 f/4.0-5.6 IS L II ... matching the new Nikon's MTF.

Most of the lenses in the longer focal range have been updated recently, and it doesn't take an oracle to see that Canon will be replacing older lenses, shorter focal lenses and lenses that have more competition over the next few years. Canon gains nothing for not bringing out a better design that they can sell for more profit than an existing model.

So go ahead and switch to Nikon already. They're a reputable company that makes good products. You obviously prefer theirs to Canon's, so what on Earth is keeping you as a Canon customer?

hehehe .. the usual fanboy crap, wehn they up against the wall.No I do not want to switch to Nikon. I want a new, improved EF 100-400/f 4.0 (!) - 5.6 L IS II with MTF like the new nikon and at a price not higher but preferably lower than the new Nikon. To go along with the other Canon stuff I got. And no, I will not buy the current 100-400 L with its old 1.5 EV stop IS and its outdated push-pull design and its only so-so IQ (by 2013 standards, it's not 1993 any longer!) . No matter, how "relatively cheap" this old clunker may be. :-)

So go ahead and switch to Nikon already. They're a reputable company that makes good products. You obviously prefer theirs to Canon's, so what on Earth is keeping you as a Canon customer?

hehehe .. the usual fanboy crap, wehn they up against the wall.No I do not want to switch to Nikon. I want a new, improved EF 100-400/f 4.0 (!) - 5.6 L IS II with MTF like the new nikon and at a price not higher but preferably lower than the new Nikon. To go along with the other Canon stuff I got.